Our first retail card of the day and the other 1GB card in our roundup is EVGA’s GeForce GTX 650 Ti 1GB Super Superclocked Edition. This is EVGA’s factory overclocked model, with EVGA giving it a rather massive factory overclock of 146MHz (16%), pushing the shipping clockspeed to 1071MHz core while the memory clockspeed remains unchanged at 5.4GHz. Due to the size of the overclock this is one of the few occasions where EVGA skips a Superclocked card and just moves straight to Super Superclocked, which is why the GTX 650 Ti SSC doesn’t have a SC counterpart.

GeForce GTX 650 Ti Partner Card Specification Comparison

GeForce GTX 650 Ti(Ref)

EVGA GTX 650 Ti SSC

Zotac GTX 650 Ti AMP!

Gigabyte GTX 650 Ti OC

Base Clock

925MHz

1071MHz

1033MHz

1033MHz

Memory Clock

5.4GHz

5.4GHz

6.2GHz

5.4GHz

Frame Buffer

1GB

1GB

2GB

2GB

Width

Double Slot

Double Slot

Double Slot

Double Slot

Length

5.75"

5.75"

5.75"

9.3"

Warranty

N/A

3 Year

2 Year + Life

3 Year

Price Point

$149

$159

$179

$174

Factory overclock aside, as is typical for EVGA the GTX 650 Ti SSC is very similar to NVIDIA’s reference design. Here EVGA is using the NVIDIA reference PCB but with their own cooler. EVGA’s design uses a larger, mid-profile aluminum heatsink, with a partial shroud covering it. This is still an open air cooler, but compared to the NVIDIA reference design EVGA is channeling a larger portion of air towards the card’s exhaust, which uses EVGA’s increasingly common high-flow bracket. Other than the factory overclock and the larger cooler, the GTX 650 Ti SSC is identical to the NVIDIA reference design, right down to connector placement and the display connectivity options.

Of course no EVGA card would be complete without EVGA’s software suite. EVGA has continued to update PrecisionX and OC Scanner X as newer GeForce 600 cards have come out, both of which are going to be more important than usual for the GTX 650 Ti SSC due to its overclocking capabilities. PrecisionX remains as the gold standard for video card overclocking utilities (alongside its sibling MSI Afterburner) thanks to its UI, and in this case voltage control support. OC Scanner X meanwhile is one of the best artifact scanners we’ve seen, though like other artifact scanners its ability to find problems is hit & miss; Crysis tends to trip up an overclock before OC Scanner X does.

Rounding out the rest of package is EVGA’s typical collection of accessories and knick-knacks. In the box you’ll find a molex power adapter, a quick start guide, and some stickers. As with all EVGA cards, the GTX 650 Ti SSC comes with EVGA’s standard 3 year transferable warranty, with individual 2 or 7 year extensions available for purchase upon registration, which will also unlock access to EVGA’s step-up upgrade program. Finally, the EVGA GeForce GTX 650 Ti Super Superclocked 1GB will be hitting retail with an MSRP of $159, $10 over the MSRP for reference 1GB cards. EVGA will also be offering a 2GB version of this card at $179.

Post Your Comment

91 Comments

The 7850 is more money, it should perform faster. I'd expect nothing less. So what this person would end up with is 10-20% less perf (in the situation you describe) for 10-20% less money. ERGO, exactly what they should have got. So basically a free copy of AC3 :) Which is kind of the point. The 2GB beating the 650TI in that review is $20 more. It goes without saying you should get more perf for more $. What's your point?

Your wrong. IN the page you point to (just looking at that, won't bother going though them all), the 650TI 1GB scores 32fps MIN, vs. 7770 25fps min. So unplayable on 7770, but playable on 650TI. Nuff said. Spin that all you want all day. The card is worth more than 7770. That's OVER 20% faster 1920x1080 4xAA in witcher 2. You could argue for $139 maybe, but not with the AC3 AAA title, and physx support in a lot of games and more to come.http://www.geforce.com/games-applications/physxAll games with physx so far. Usually had for free, no hit, see hardocp etc. Borderlands 2, Batman AC & AAsylum, Alice Madness returns, Metro2033, sacred2FA, etc etc...The list of games is long and growing. This isn't talked about much, nor what these effects at to the visual experience. You just can't do that on AMD. Considering these big titles (and more head to the site) use it, any future revs of these games (sequels etc) will likely use it also and the devs now have great experience with physx. This will continue to become a bigger issue as we move forward. What happens when all new games support this, and there's no hit for having it on (hardocp showed they were winning WITH it on for free)? There's quite a good argument even now that a LOT of good games are different in a good way on NV based cards. Soon it won't be a good argument, it will be THE argument. Unfortunately for AMD/Intel havok never took off and AMD has no money to throw at devs to inspire them to support it. NV continues to make games more fun on their hardware (either on android tegrazone stuff, or PC stuff). Much tighter connections with devs on the NV side. Money talks, unfortunately for AMD debt can't talk for you (accept to say don't buy my stock we're in massive debt) :) Reply

No, you are wrong. Lower end nvidia cards(whether this card falls into that category or not is debatable) generally cannot run physx on high, but require it to be set to medium, low or off. AMD cards can run physx in a number of games on medium by using the cpu without a massive performance hit. There hasn't been a lot of time since nvidia got physx tech from ageia for game developers to include it in titles because developement cycles are getting longer and longer. Still, I think most devs shy away from physx because it hurts the bottom line(more time to impliment= more money spend on salaries and later release, alienate 40% of potential market by making it so the full experience is not an option for them, losing more money). Take a look at the havok page on wikipedia vs the physx page(which is more extensive than what even nvidia lists on their own site). Havok and other software physics engines are used in the vast majority of released and soon to be released titles because they will work with anyone's card. I'm not saying HD7770 is better than gtx650ti(it is in fact worse than the new card), but the HD7850 is a far better value(especially the 2GB version). Finally, it is possible to add a low end geforce like gt610 to a higher end AMD primary as a dedicated physx card in some systems.Reply

"AMD cards can run physx in a number of games on medium by using the cpu without a massive performance hit."

Then try to turn it all around???? Clever? Doubtful!!

And this is what all the AMD fanboys cried about. Nvidia purposefully crippling physX on the CPU. Nvidia evil for making physX nvidia only. But now they have improved their physX code on the CPU and every single game as of late offers acceptable physX performance on AMD hardware via the CPU. Of course you will only get fully fledged GPU accelerated physX with Nvidia hardware but you cannot really expect more, can you?

Even if your not capable of seeing the improvements Nvidia made it is there. They have reached over and extended the branch to AMD users. They got physX to run better on multicore CPUs. They listened to complaints (even from AMD users) and made massive improvements.

This is the thing with nvidia. They are listening and steadily improving. Removing those negatives one at a time. Its gonna be hard for AMD fanboys to come up with negatives because nvidia is responding with every generation. PhysX is one example, the massive power efficiency improvement of kepler is another. Nvidia is proactive and looking for ways to improve their direction. All these things complaints on Nvidia are getting addressed. There is nothing you can really say except they are making good progress. But that will not stop AMD fans from desperately searching for any negative that they can grasp on to. But more and more people are taking note of this progress, if you havent noticed yourself.Reply

Oh, so that's why the crybaby amd fans have shut their annoying traps on that, not to mention their holy god above all amd/radeon videocards apu holy trinity company after decades of foaming the fuming rage amd fanboys into mooing about "proprietary Physx! " like a sick monkey in heat and half dead, and extolling the pure glorious god like and friendly neighbor gamer love of "open source" and spewwwwwwwing OpenCL as if they had it sewed all over their private parts and couldn't stop staring and reading the teleprompter, their glorious god amd BLEW IT- and puked out their proprietary winzip ! R O F L

Suddenly the intense and insane constant moaning and complaining and attacking and dissing and spewing against nVidia "proprietary" was gone...

"In the case of Assassin’s Creed III, which is bundled with the GTX 650 Ti at participating e-tailers and retailers, we recorded 36.9 frames per second using medium settings."

That's not all that surprising to me though as the GTX 280 ran AC2/ACB Anvil engine games at around the same framerate. While AC3 will certainly be more demanding, the 650Ti is a good bit faster than the 280.

I'm not in the market though for a GTX 650Ti, I'm more interested in the AC3 bundle making its way to other GeForce parts as I'm interested in grabbing another 670. :DReply

Perhaps you might test without AA when dealing with cards in a sub-$200 price range as that would seem the more likely use for the card. Not saying you can't test with AA, too, but to have all tests include AA seems to be testing a new Volkswagon bug with a raw speed test through a live fire training exercise you'd test a humvee with.Reply

AA testing is often used to stress the ROP and memory bandwidth of GPUs. Also, it's what separates consoles from PCs. If a $150 GPU cannot handle AA but a $160-180 competitor can, it should be discussed. When GTX650Ti and its after-market versions are so closely priced to 7850 1GB/7850 2GB, and it's clear that 650Ti is so much slower, the only one to blame here is NV for setting the price at $149, not the reviewer for using AA.

GTX560/560Ti/6870/6950 were all tested with AA and this card not only competes against HD7850 but gives owners of older cards a perspective of how much progress there has been with new generation of GPUs. Not using AA would not allow for such a comparison to be made unless you dropped AA from all the cards in this review.

It sounds like you are trying to find a way to make this card look good but sub-$200 GPUs are capable of running AA as long as you get a faster card.

HD7850 is 34% faster than GTX650Ti with 4xAA at 1080P and 49% faster with 8xAA at 1080P